Gay Rights Poll/Debate

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Tinuviel, Dec 4, 2003.

?

Are you for gay rights?

  1. yes

    232 vote(s)
    68.4%
  2. no

    68 vote(s)
    20.1%
  3. yes and no

    39 vote(s)
    11.5%
  1. Dreamscaper

    Dreamscaper Royal Hamster Wrangler

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,962
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +249 / 3 / -0
    Old Testament you would have a point as the Hebrew people were a political unit, New Testament, not so much since its based around everybody. Animals were not given a set of rules either so I don't really see animal behavior as being particularly relevant. The theory of it being strictly population based is interesting, but I do not see scriptoral evidence to support it as is. I'm not certain about eating certain meats on certain days except some of the old festivals, I have no idea why Catholics do that during lent really. The lifting of the ban on certain meats has a pair of scripture bases about its absolution. I believe the specific reason given was that it was unclean (ie bad for you), but if I recall correctly many of them were given specifically to the Hebrews. As a Celt/Teuton I'm honestly not certain it would have any sway anyway give my people were not the target of the command.
     
  2. S.J. Faerlind

    S.J. Faerlind Flashlight Shadowhunter

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    5,672
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Canada
    Ratings:
    +298 / 2 / -1
    Personally, I love your idealism Eph. :) I think idealism is both a good thing and a bad thing. Without some kind of idealistic goals to strive for, humanity would be nothing more than a disaster of anarchy - everybody doing whatever pleased them at the time and at the expense of everyone else. It doesn't matter if those ideals are practically impossible to achieve. What matters is that a person sets ideals that matter to them and then tries to achieve them. That's personal growth and progression toward improvement.

    ^^This is why idealism can be a bad thing. One person's ideals are not always relevant to or appropriate for someone else and that causes conflict if you let it.
    "Good" and "bad" are always inextricably intertwined in everything... they're two sides of the same coin. As a species I don't think we do a good job of understanding this. I think if we did, we'd be a lot more tolerant of each other's differences.
     
  3. Lord Yuan

    Lord Yuan Death-Thousand+

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,068
    Likes Received:
    125
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Crystal Prison (space crime)
    Ratings:
    +162 / 0 / -0
    As long as the popular belief stands that good and bad is clear cut and most of western culture reinforces and even rewards that kind of thinking. I don't think that people are doing a bad job, if people tried to do a good job they would be resisting fundamental aspects of their society. There is no post-conventional morally developed society, and if there were every conventional society would be lurching nukes at it while calling it evil. And I don't think you could blame them for that either because anybody that tries to question "good and bad" would just be branded and shunned, resisting something so standard would damn somebody and their family line.
     
  4. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Exactly, many people might support a cause personally but it doesn't mean they're going to join a street march. But the fact they quietly support it at home means they're not one of those who are actively anti-whatever it is.


    I'd say good old fashioned human intolerance, bigotry and hatred do just fine, religion is often a contributing factor but it doesn't need to be present for people to be massive jerks.
     
  5. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    I could dig this new Pope

     
  6. Sparrow

    Sparrow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,823
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    here and there
    Ratings:
    +251 / 3 / -1
    It's just the latest performance for a circus act that's been playing for 2000 years. Color me not impressed.

    What he meant to say was that if a gay person sincerely seeks the Lord, AND stops being gay, he or she can go to Heaven with the rest of us straight folks.
     
  7. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    This new Pope has a LOT of ground to recover for the Catholic Church with regard to their image as a church. Furthermore a lot of the first world countries with strong Christian backgrounds are now moving toward recognising homosexuals as equals in a social and legal sense to others the Christian Church has to consider taking a softer stance otherwise they'd quickly find themselves "in the dark ages" and fast find themselves losing and unable to recover believers and also likely seeing more fringe/splinter groups break off. Since Homosexualty being recognised is being mainstream its likely best for them to stick with the mainstream - sure they'll lose some into splinter groups, but the potential loss is less that way round than the other.


    Of course its only his singular view so it will be one of those things that we'll have to see how time unfolds things.
     
  8. Julie

    Julie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,293
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Belgium
    Ratings:
    +41 / 0 / -0
  9. Lajvarporr

    Lajvarporr New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Sweden
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Re: Homosexuality

    Why should one keep his or her sexuality to themselves?
     
  10. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
  11. Taliesyn

    Taliesyn It's a feral reality out there, kids.

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2012
    Messages:
    6,350
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +423 / 2 / -0
    ^ Huzzah! :)
     
  12. Sparrow

    Sparrow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,823
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    here and there
    Ratings:
    +251 / 3 / -1
    About time.

    Half the men in Scotland are gay anyways, the other half are alcoholics.:)
     
  13. Wonderfulhugs

    Wonderfulhugs Fred The Sabertooth

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2014
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Ryshtyyn Port, Veshleek
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0 / -1
    Hello Tinuviel,

    I believe that homosexuality is not wrong in anyway whatsoever. If someone wishes to bed down with the same sex its their choice. America was supposed to be founded on the belief of freedom. If we are to be truely free then we should make our own life choices. Who are we to judge if someone is gay or straight? They should have equal righst just as any couple does. Some people may argue that its a sin against god and they shouldnt be allowed to be gay. Well isnt it up to god to cast judgement on his own people? If so then we have no right to judge them. Im not religious at all im just making a point to those who would say such things.
     
  14. wanderingmagus

    wanderingmagus Constantly Around :D

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    7,561
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    Ratings:
    +248 / 1 / -0
    It's mainstream in first world countries, you mean. Catholicism and Christianity, along with most religions for that matter, are most influential in third world areas like South/Central America, Africa, southeast Asia, and the Middle East. In those places, being gay still means getting stoned, burned at the stake, or lynched. "Mainstream" would apply to, say, North America, Australia and Western Europe. There's three more populated continents in the world, and a LOT more people. Just look at the most populous countries in the world: India, China, Indonesia, Brazil...
     
  15. Blackness

    Blackness Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +145 / 0 / -0
    To be honest, accepting homosexuality in the West has gotten to such an irrational level, it's basically as bad as the third world countries' opposition to it.
    You can't even attempt to start a rational discussion with the premise that gay marriages shouldn't be completely equal to heterosexual ones, without being patronized, insulted or just automatically dismissed.
    Whenever a society loses its ability to debate rationally (in intellectual circles especially), on anything whatsoever, it usually implies a form of fetal totalitarianism, it starts with limiting thought and debates (it doesn't have to be by law, society has passive ways of forcing people to conform, which are often far more effective than enforcing an actual law - political correctness is an example of this), and ends up with things much worse.

    This is a good example: http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/colorado-baker-shut-shopp-serve-gay-couples-article-1.1815868

    It's his right to deny service to whomever he wants. Well, in a free country, it would be. He's the one losing money from it, especially if the gay couple started a boycott. But what happened? The state forced this man to accept something he doesn't want to accept.
    I think this is as horrible as forcing gays to pretend to be straight.
     
  16. Overread

    Overread Wolfing it up! Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2007
    Messages:
    6,537
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    UK
    Ratings:
    +342 / 1 / -0
    Part of it is forcing change.

    A State in the USA semi-recently removed a law which enforced universities within the state to accept a certain % of non-white students.

    It was put into place to help force change toward equality and now that equality is more even handed its being removed to give proper equality rather than forced.

    Acceptance of homosexuality is the same; to make the change happen there has to be a degree of force added so that people actually do try to change. Otherwise most people are to set in their ways, unconcerned or simply unaware to bother. Once you've then got to a point where society at large accepts the changes you can then scale back the force since its simply no longer needed.
     
  17. Sparrow

    Sparrow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,823
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    here and there
    Ratings:
    +251 / 3 / -1
    It's actually not within his rights to deny service to whomever he wants. If a black man and a white woman visited his bakery and ordered a wedding cake, and he refused service because he's against mixed race marriages... would that be acceptable? Of course not. If somebody is renting apartments they can't deny a person an apartment due to sexual preference, race, religion, etc. Sure, we're just talking about a bakery and it's no big deal refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple... what if, let's say he was a loan officer at a bank, and he refused to give a home loan to a gay couple for a house they qualified for?

    The State isn't forcing him to do anything beyond following State and Federal Laws.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  18. Blackness

    Blackness Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,947
    Likes Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings:
    +145 / 0 / -0
    He wouldn't have that kind of authority, only if it were bank policy would it be alright, in my opinion.
    My mistake, I assumed that in America and all the free market jazz, denying services was an integral part of economic liberty. Still, I consider it injust. Yes, it would be alright to refuse service to whomever you want for whatever reason. In private businesses of course, public officials must follow whatever the government wishes.
    State and Federal laws are totalitarian, apparently.

    @OR: Affirmative action laws are discrimination against the white population, I'm glad they're starting to get removed. Two wrongs don't make a right, and equality isn't something formal, just cause there are more blacks enrolling doesn't mean ANY of the disparities between blacks and whites really changed in the society as a whole. It's just a pretty number set to mask the real socioeconomic problems, but to stay on the subject - Yes, the state has the right/power to force people to do things, but can we really judge those states that wish to execute homosexuals then? Is it only the states in the West that have a monopoly on what's "universally right"? A state built on the ideals of liberalism and democracy certainly shouldn't force people to change their ways if the people themselves don't wish to change. It's the basic premise of "liberty" to do as you wish as long as you don't harm others. Refusing to sell certain goods to certain people doesn't really constitute "harming".
     
  19. Sparrow

    Sparrow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,823
    Likes Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    here and there
    Ratings:
    +251 / 3 / -1
    I doubt you have any real understanding of Affirmative Action, either in its history or implementation. Affirmative Action, was originally enacted to protect workers who wished to unionize in the 1930s. Affirmative Action has also met constitutional scrutiny several times in the decades since.

    News flash!.. white people aren't being discriminated against in this country based on race. These days we discriminate based on class and economic mobility. I'm a straight white male, and the world still marches to my tune. Where I've changed my attitude is that I no longer think that issues like Gay Rights don't effect me, or that I don't have a moral obligation to fight for the rights of others. I'm not gay, I am not nearly hip enough to have gay friends, but I do have a moral obligation to see that gay folks enjoy the same rights I have.

    I shop owner not serving a gay person simply because of sexual orientation is unacceptable, and illegal. And yes, you can force people to change their ways.
     
  20. wanderingmagus

    wanderingmagus Constantly Around :D

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Messages:
    7,561
    Likes Received:
    117
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Middle Earth
    Ratings:
    +248 / 1 / -0
    Whatever happened to "land of the free"? So you would be all for Thought Police that punish anyone who commits whatever you consider Thoughtcrime? A Big Brother who makes sure people think the way you want them to think, say the things you want them to say, and do the things you want them to do?

    This used to be a place where you could refuse service to anyone you felt like. If they wanted a wedding cake, they could damn well go to the bakery down the street for it. Supply and demand. Do we not operate under that assumption anymore? Will the Thought Police come and get me if I had bad thoughts?

    It seems the main difference between China/Iran/Russia and America is merely technicality now. The techniques all increasingly look the same.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1